On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> The new Vivante GPU packages remove the backend suffix from libraries
What does "new Vivante GPU packages" mean? Could you please be more
specific as to which version you are referring to?

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:>> The new Vivante GPU packages remove the backend suffix from libraries>> What does "new Vivante GPU packages" mean? Could you please be more> specific as to which version you are referring to?
The package split done in previous commit. Do you have a suggestion
how to make it more clear?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:>>> The new Vivante GPU packages remove the backend suffix from libraries>>>> What does "new Vivante GPU packages" mean? Could you please be more>> specific as to which version you are referring to?>> The package split done in previous commit. Do you have a suggestion> how to make it more clear?
Ok, I understand now after your explanation.
Initially I thought you were referring to GPU package version scheme,
like 1.1.0.
If commit (1/3) introduces a build error without this one (2/3),
shouldn't 2/3 be part of 1/3 to avoid the build breakage?

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:>>>> The new Vivante GPU packages remove the backend suffix from libraries>>>>>> What does "new Vivante GPU packages" mean? Could you please be more>>> specific as to which version you are referring to?>>>> The package split done in previous commit. Do you have a suggestion>> how to make it more clear?>> Ok, I understand now after your explanation.>> Initially I thought you were referring to GPU package version scheme,> like 1.1.0.>> If commit (1/3) introduces a build error without this one (2/3),> shouldn't 2/3 be part of 1/3 to avoid the build breakage?
Yes; I think it makes sense but not usually done in Yocto as bisect is
not expected to be fully working in Yocto repositories so I am not
sure about how to handle it. I see pros and cons for both approaches.
What your point of view?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> Yes; I think it makes sense but not usually done in Yocto as bisect is> not expected to be fully working in Yocto repositories so I am not> sure about how to handle it. I see pros and cons for both approaches.> What your point of view?
In the projects I participate it is not allowed to introduce a commit
that builds the breakage, even if it will be fixed in the subsequent
commit and I agree that this is a good practice.
Or at least your commit could be like:
"Since commit xxxxx (gpu-viv-bin-mx6q: Rework package for a single
backend use ) the backend suffix from libraries
was removed, so remove the LDFLAGS to fix the build"
Anyway, I prefer not to break things at the first place.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:>>> Yes; I think it makes sense but not usually done in Yocto as bisect is>> not expected to be fully working in Yocto repositories so I am not>> sure about how to handle it. I see pros and cons for both approaches.>> What your point of view?>> In the projects I participate it is not allowed to introduce a commit> that builds the breakage, even if it will be fixed in the subsequent> commit and I agree that this is a good practice.>> Or at least your commit could be like:>> "Since commit xxxxx (gpu-viv-bin-mx6q: Rework package for a single> backend use ) the backend suffix from libraries> was removed, so remove the LDFLAGS to fix the build">> Anyway, I prefer not to break things at the first place.
Ok; I agree with you. I will rework the 1/3 patch.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br